The Calling of the 2013 Conclave Was Not Legitimate – In Syllogistic Format

The calling of a legitimate conclave in 2013 required the abdication or death of Pope Benedict XVI.
But Pope Benedict XVI did not abdicate or die in 2013.
Therefore, the calling of the 2013 conclave was not legitimate.

The conclusion logically follows from the major and minor premise.  No Catholic worth the name would doubt the major premise.  The minor premise is true because Pope Benedict XVI did not die in 2013 or renounce his munus as required by Canon 332  §2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

To those who rabidly hold to the impeded see thesis, the substantial error thesis, or some other thesis, attributing a motive to Pope Benedict XVI for what he did is not necessary for us to agree on the minor premise.  Therefore, please stop treating your thesis as if it were dogma.

The Impeded See Thesis as Expressed by a Friend

“Pope Benedict XVI allowed the Cardinals to decide to incorrectly interpret the Declaratio as an abdication document, resulting in an illegitimate call for a Conclave, which placed the Pope in a state of Impeded See, where he kept the Munus and lost the Ministerium.”

…..

The definition of Impede See: an alternative to the Vacant See, where the Pope is imprisoned, confined, exiled and not free to express himself.  Art. 335 of the Code of Canon Law states:
‘When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.'”

Traditionalism versus Conservatism

The above is an excerpt from the article linked below.  It brings to mind many of those who adhere to the “impeded see” thesis that Benedict XVI masterfully executed a deliberate invalid renunciation to confound the enemies of the Church.  These people (e.g., Dr. Andrea Cionci) can be labelled as “conservatives”.  They do not go to the root of the problem that brought us to the point of the Bergoglian antipapacy, that is, the Second Vatican Council, of which the likes of Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla had a huge play in promoting and defending throughout their lives as clerics.  These people may criticize to some extent the Second Vatican Council, but ultimately they adhere to it as a continuation of the Catholic Church.  They don’t see, as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, that the Second Vatican Council was the doctrinal foundation of a new church, the conciliar church.  In the meantime, they attack Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated as schismatic.  They also attack Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano by saying that he is on the road to schism because he had himself conditionally consecrated by one of these bishops.  One day they will realize that their focus was on the branches of the tree and not the root, and they will be ashamed for attacking the servants of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Blessed Mother and Queen.

Traditionalism Versus Conservatism